Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Noob questions about piano software and modelling

I've tried to read some on piano software and modelling, but have some questions which I can't really find an easy answer to:

1. It seems that Pianoteq is really popular on this forum. There seems to be other alternatives as well, such as TruePianos. My question is: Which ones (or one) are considered to be the top-tier of modeled pianos?

2. Of these top-tier modeled pianos, how are they compared to Roland's latest HP603/605 or LX7/17? Are these piano softwares considered to be leagues ahead of Roland's SuperNATURAL technique, or just one step ahead?

3. What are the most popular ditos for sampled pianos (top-tier segment) for computer use?

4. In general, are most people considering the sampled pianos to be ahead of the modeled pianos (if we compare the top-tier segments for computer software), or vice versa? Or is it a 50/50 situation?

5. If we take a concert grand Steinway, what do poeple consider to be The best way to produce the "best" sound (using a recorded MIDI file)?

As to which is best, it's a loaded question.

Sure, but I am an adult, so your best 2 cents on it will do

That's also why I tried to angle the question a bit. If 95% agrees that samples pianos are way better, I would say that's the standard opinion. If it's 50/50, then it's an open question and matter of opinion.

Sampled pianos have limitations, especially when it comes to dynamics which modelled and acoustic pianos dont. but the consensus is that sampled pianos sound better.

It's a matter of taste.

The only thing most people tend to agree on this subject is that modeling tends to be much more responsive to your playing, while sampled tends to sound better by default.

As for question #5, I will say that, while I personally prefer sampled, to get the "best sound" the library you choose matters very little, especially if we're talking "publishing a recording". Post processing is what makes any (and I really mean any) library and makes it "the best sound".

Thanks, that's really interesting. I was interested in maybe do some recording from a digital piano to a midi file, and then just "render" it, either with samples or a modeled piano.

But if PP is such a big deal then it seems like a really big project.

I agree that sampled pianos (as VST software) sound much better than modeled pianos. But I don't know that there is any consensus.

RickardNi, Does consensus matter?

It is, if you're pursuing "the best sound". That isn't to say a piano library can't sound good on its own, but, in terms of producing a quality "recording" (rendering, technically...but still a recording), the specific library doesn't matter too much compared to post-processing. On this regard, I will say that post processing a sampled piano is significantly easier and faster than Pianoteq. For example, I personally find that Galaxy Vintage D has just a bit too much muddyness, which can easily be corrected with an EQ and/or multiband compressor. However, for Pianoteq I can't quite pinpoint what makes it sound "metallic" and getting the right post process is much harder.

On the other hand, in my experience, Pianoteq tends to sound better out of the box (with whichever preset you choose) on most headphones/speakers, while most libaries I've tried always have some things that can be corrected. I feel like I have to stress the "headphones/speakers" part...mastering is no easy business, and, while I personally think sampled libraries can get the best sound with post processing, Pianoteq somehow manages to get a nice overall sound on any pair of headphones/speakers.

I'm an amateur.
but I love to play piano.
I pretty much only play through headphones.
I can tell you one thing.
if I knew then, what I know now, I would buy Garritan CFX and The Hammersmith.
immediately, if not sooner.
I really like them both. alot.
as always, its highly subjective.
thus, ymmv.

Questions that ask about "what is the best" are tough, since often every answer is equally valid -- my favorite is truly my favorite as is your favorite truly your favorite, and can often devolve into rants or arguments. The only thing that matters is what is YOUR favorite. Try them out. Play with them. Find out for yourself.

To answer RicardNi's original question, I think that Pianoteq has the edge over Roland's modeled pianos in variety and quality - in quality, just an edge.

You just bought a CA97, am I correct? That's a great DP. I would just concentrate on making music instead of shopping and comparing all of products out there. The grass ain't going to be much greener on the other side.

For me, it's a compromise and you have to figure out what you can live with. To me sampled Pianos have better, more authentic sound, BUT modeled pianos have a are more responsive while playing.

My preference is for the responsiveness of modeling and I can live with the less 'authentic' sound. While my US$600 Roland FP-30 is deficient in some areas, it has really surprised me because I keep liking it more and more because of the responsiveness of the modeling. And it's at the low-end of that spectrum!

The FP-30 uses a "SuperNatural" sound generator (sample-based), _not_ the "SuperNatural Modeling" sound generator in the higher-end, recent Roland DP's.

It's a nice sound, anyway.

Pianos have different character, so do VSTi's. What modelling is better for is giving the player a feel that s/he is able to control the piano more similarly to an acoustic piano than with the sampled software (i.e., modelled piano is more responsive).

It is one thing to play (which is physical, tactile, multi-sensory), another thing to hear. WE know that in focusing on one sense, other senses become less active. Therefore, if your stop playing, how you hear the tone changes. The focus upon playing makes a difference to how you hear the tone of the piano, just as the sense of smell makes a difference to how you taste.

Whilst you may be able to assert finer control over modelled pianos, you may hear a performance which seems sonically closer to an acoustic recording from a multi-gigabyte sampled library. This was certainly true of earlier versions of Pianoteq. However, each new version refines the sound to more closely match acoustic instruments they are modelling. If you get Pianoteq, you know that in 10 years time, you'll have a much better modelled piano than now.

Similarly, sampling technology is still evolving---incorporating modelling techniques to improve aspects of the instrument that are hard to sample. Of course, the modelled instruments take much less memory on a computer hard-drive to run.

You can hear the difference between Pianoteq and the LX17 using YouTube. How they feel to play I cannot give you. I can say I very much enjoyed the LX17 (to play); however, that experience isn't something you can access nor necessarily sympathise with. I can tell you that the difference between the Grand Piano on the RD800 (sampled + modelling of string resonance) is far behind the sound of the LX17. What does that mean to you who has not played both (assuming you haven't)?

Our tastes and likes are not our own---e.g., in the sense that we have become programmed by our past experiences, so our expectations belong to our past. They will not change till we play new instruments and experience them.

Also, whether you appreciate touch or tone and to what degree will be specific to you. Perhaps your ear will be hypersensitive to tone and perhaps your brain will be less interested in other aspects of playing. For instance, my sense of smell is terrible, so how I perceive taste is different to those with a good sense of smell.

Therefore, I would encourage you to try out for yourself these different options. I know that there are people in this forum with similar tastes in digitals to myself, and those who hold diametrically opposing opinions. Therefore, what is the value of hearing our subjective ideas---you will not know how you feel about your questions until you physically experience the instruments and compare for yourself.